Following recent clues, EA officially announcesCrysis 3, saying the next installment in Crytek's first-person shooter series is due in spring of next year for Windows, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3. "Crysis 3 is a thrilling mix of sandbox gameplay, advanced combat and hi-tech human and alien weaponry that shooter fans will love," said Cevat Yerli, Chief Executive Officer of Crytek. "Leveraging the latest CryENGINE technology, we’re able to deliver seven unique themes that offer stunning and visually loaded gameplay experiences. We cannot wait until people get their hands on the game." Though still a year off, they already outline three early multiplayer unlocks you can earn by preordering the Crysis 3 Hunter Edition (though the link they provide doesn't lead anywhere yet) as well as additional perks like a nanosuit module and an XP boost. Like Crysis 2, the sequel is set in a future version of New York City, here are some screenshots, and here's word:

Players take on the role of ‘Prophet’ as he returns to New York, only to discover that the city has been encased in a Nanodome created by the corrupt Cell Corporation. The New York City Liberty Dome is a veritable urban rainforest teeming with overgrown trees, dense swamplands and raging rivers. Within the Liberty Dome, seven distinct and treacherous environments become known as the Seven Wonders. This dangerous new world demands advanced weapons and tactics. Prophet will utilize a lethal composite bow, an enhanced Nanosuit and devastating alien tech to become the deadliest hunter on the planet.

Btw, all you ever needed to get Crysis to run OK is a Core 2 Duo 2.66 GHz, 2 GB of DDR2 800, and an 8800GT.

That enabled you to run in high detail at 1024x768 (face it guys, this 1080p native resolution thing is bullshit unless you can truly future-proof your rig).

Since I'm forced into 1024x768 due to a shitty monitor, no problems here!

Also, if you can overclock that "Crysis PC" (Crytek, in response to the performance complaints, put together this sub-$1000 system configuration as an example of what Crysis actually requires to perform reasonably) configuration to 3.2 GHz, you can actually run in DIRECTX9 mode a very high/high hybrid.

With full, very-high texture detail, of course.

Would you rather run shit quality at high resolution or near-awesome quality at a lower resolution (which happens to be JUST high enough to allow appreciable graphics)?

Perhaps a compromise between the two would be better, perhaps not.

I can tell you this though: having your Geforce 9800 GT die and being forced to use a Radeon X1600 Pro with Left 4 Dead 2 and ending up dropping ALL detail except full gore and the resolution to 640x480 and still getting unplayable frame rates and then finding out you gotta drop your sound card's sound quality to minimum to just run in 800x600 with jack shit except medium textures and full gore is bullshit.

After the disappointment that Crysis 2 was on PC, it's going to take a lot to get me to support Crytek again!

Did you know, PC Gamer (US) gave Crysis 2 an Editor's Choice award of 89%! Does Crysis 2 in anyway, except for graphics, exemplify what the PC can do for games? Does it in anyway boost the PC over competing platforms? Does it in anyway glorify the PC? Does it make you want to buy and use/play games on a PC instead of other platforms? These are some examples of what might define an Editor's Choice award from a PC gaming magazine! I think Crysis 2 does not fit into any of these. (Except graphics, they were pretty).

I think if reviewers are going to give Duke Nukem Forever marks around 60%, they need to give Crysis 2 the same 60% (linear, overly controlled game play, check-point only saves). There wasn't too much of a difference between them I think. PC Gamer gave DNF 83% I think, which is too high IMO (allowed to carry only two guns at once, all the fun and 'unrealness' of a Duke Nukem game is gone), and Crysis 2 getting 89%, and an EC award.... no way.

Beamer wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 11:35:Yeah, but it makes games much more fun. DX:HR would be no fun at all without being able to sneak around with a silencer. Then again, in the original I really used the dart gun for almost everthing...

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 02:10:A design decision largely driven by a console's limitations. Crytek simply could not replicate the same experience of Crysis on consoles without compromising it (as the ports eventually proved), so they decided to avoid that path entirely and go the city route. You may prefer this route but you can't really ignore the technical reasons behind it.

Yes, but Crysis didn't even run well on most PCs at the time and is still very demanding.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 02:10:I don't live in New York so I don't really have any emotional attachment to it. NY is also heavily overused in movies, television, comics and games, to the point where it's become stale as a setting. To be fair, I haven't found the story or writing of any of Crytek's games to be particularly compelling so the setting is largely irrelevant to me anyway.

The point is that it's a city, something that people can relate to much more than a nondescript Korean island. There is no denying that it's an overused location but it's easier to relate to.

SXO wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 08:53:The story and setting in Crysis 2 was in fact changed from what they originally planned to make. Originally the plan was that you would play as Prophet as he went back into the island to take on the alien threat (as evidenced by the cliffhangar ending of the first game). They also stated as much after Warhead launched.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm certainly glad they made that change. The characters in the original Crysis were completely forgettable and there was absolutely no advantage to bringing them back.

Let me just comment on the ongoing debate about why Crysis 2 took place in an urban environment. I forgot where I read the interview, but Cevat basically stated that the change was in fact because of the move to consoles, but not because of the hardware limitations. They felt that console gamers would enjoy an urban setting more than a jungle setting, and that if they had continued with a jungle setting, nobody would keep playing after Crysis 2. The story and setting in Crysis 2 was in fact changed from what they originally planned to make. Originally the plan was that you would play as Prophet as he went back into the island to take on the alien threat (as evidenced by the cliffhangar ending of the first game). They also stated as much after Warhead launched.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 02:10:A design decision largely driven by a console's limitations. Crytek simply could not replicate the same experience of Crysis on consoles without compromising it (as the ports eventually proved), so they decided to avoid that path entirely and go the city route. You may prefer this route but you can't really ignore the technical reasons behind it.

The ports of Crysis you mean? I haven't played them but it is my understanding the original Crysis plays fine on consoles, open-world and all. They removed some foliage and such, but it still looks mostly the same.

I would guess you're both right... setting it in NY probably let them put more on screen, but they could have easily done an open area too.

zirik wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 19:35:wait... did i read that correctly? prophet is alive? dont tell me theyre going to reincarnate him in the body of alcatraz. alcatraz might be mute during the entire game but his mind was not dead. the nanosuit kept him from being infected and dying from his injuries. prophet on the other hand shot himself in the head at the beginning of crysis 2. or is this a prequel to crysis 2?

I don't blame you for being confused because the story was terrible, but Prophet basically is the suit now.

Sure, but didn't Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 have open levels and destructible scenery on console?

Is that destruction dynamic or are the buildings rigged to fall apart in specific ways? Also, Crysis had far more dynamically destructible trees than any BF game had destructible buidlings.

And isn't it worth sacrificing a few destructible trees to have a large open environment.

From what I understand, the environments in Crysis were both larger and more open than the environments in Crysis 2.

The point is that current gen consoles - despite being incredibly limited - are perfectly capable of handling large open levels, even with destructible scenery. The move to the city in Crysis 2 was a design decision.

A design decision largely driven by a console's limitations. Crytek simply could not replicate the same experience of Crysis on consoles without compromising it (as the ports eventually proved), so they decided to avoid that path entirely and go the city route. You may prefer this route but you can't really ignore the technical reasons behind it.

It's much more meaningful to have it set in New York as it comes under attack than having you fight Koreans on a random island that you have no emotional attachment to.

I don't live in New York so I don't really have any emotional attachment to it. NY is also heavily overused in movies, television, comics and games, to the point where it's become stale as a setting. To be fair, I haven't found the story or writing of any of Crytek's games to be particularly compelling so the setting is largely irrelevant to me anyway.

Far Cry 2 took bold risks and while they didn't all pay off it was a pioneering title for open world FPS games.

FC2 had a great setting and a lot of promising ideas. Unfortunately, the execution fell flat. Some really, really bad design choices (namely the ridiculous respawn logic, incredibly generic side-missions, superficial companion/faction system and stupid malaria mechanic) ruined the whole experience. I view FC2 much in the same light as Trespasser. They both had tons of potential but failed to live up to any of it.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 00:36:You're forgetting all the trees which you could dynamically destroy in Crysis. I don't think consoles can handle that, which is why the console ports had significantly fewer trees.

Sure, but didn't Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 have open levels and destructible scenery on console? And isn't it worth sacrificing a few destructible trees to have a large open environment? Heck, the destructible scenery in the original Crysis was so over-the-top that is was more a nuisance than an advancement of the genre.

The point is that current gen consoles - despite being incredibly limited - are perfectly capable of handling large open levels, even with destructible scenery. The move to the city in Crysis 2 was a design decision. I felt it added to the franchise. It's much more meaningful to have it set in New York as it comes under attack than having you fight Koreans on a random island that you have no emotional attachment to. To me Crysis made all the same mistakes of the original Far Cry - the game's ticking along nicely and then BOOM, stupid sci-fi hour (FC had mutants, Crysis had aliens). No originality whatsoever. Far Cry 2 took bold risks and while they didn't all pay off it was a pioneering title for open world FPS games.

You say that but look at games like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry 2 - huge worlds with minimal load times, all optimised for consoles (and PCs). I honestly think it was a design decision, not a technology constraint.

You're forgetting all the trees which you could dynamically destroy in Crysis. I don't think consoles can handle that, which is why the console ports had significantly fewer trees.

Bhruic wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 19:15:Isn't the whole point of a bow as a weapon in a FPS that it can shoot extremely quietly? I would assume that it's going to be aimed at stealth players, who would be able to take people out without any noise giving their position away. Makes sense.

If you can take down aliens and robots with it, on the other hand, it might be a bit silly.

Most of the aliens had squishy bits that you could shoot (and usually kill them pretty quickly.)

With a proper arrow, a compound longbow could also punch through steel. (not as much as a crossbow, but it still delivers quite a punch.)

That said, it's still nowhere near as effective as an assault rifle with a silencer on it.

SXO wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 20:58:Well sir, it seems we have quite different tastes in gaming. I do praise Far Cry 2 for its healing system. I think the industry should've iterated on that system for healing in FPS's instead of the Halo-derived auto-heal system that's become prevalent. FEAR had the right idea with carrying around the health packs, freeing up level designers from having to place them at regular intervals. Some would argue health packs were just as unrealistic as auto-healing, but then Far Cry 2 came out and innovated on it and turned it into an awesome system.

Looking at your sig I have to say our taste for high-end hardware is quite similar. I also looked you up on Steam, and kudos on that impressive collection of games!

One of the things that is often overlooked is that Far Cry 2 is one of the few FPS games without any sci-fi elements. In fact the African setting and idea of mercenaries worked really well. The plot didn't go anywhere but the voice acting was strong and the characters - although not memorable - were very convincing. I enjoy games where I can believe the events that are happening. Same with Half-Life - it had obvious sci-fi elements but the story of how it all happened was really compelling. That's something that I never felt with Crysis, nor with the Call Of Duty games (on the one hand they were unbelievably generic and the other they were completely over-the-top). Very few games truly grab me but Far Cry 2 was one of them, regardless of the faults.

As for my games collection, the Steam sales really are great for that. I love firing up a random game and finding a real classic, like Alpha Protocol - the gameplay is pretty hackneyed but the story was incredibly enjoyable and it felt like you were really influencing the outcome. If it wasn't for Steam I certainly wouldn't buy or play as many games as I do now. And I like to keep my computer up to date, as it seems such a waste to buy games and not enjoy them at release at the highest settings - I tend to only play games once, so I'd rather have the best experience possible.

There's no disputing that Far Cry 2 had some very obvious design flaws - AI spawning, vehicle chases, malaria, repetitive missions, lack of non-hostile characters, etc - but the core gameplay was incredibly strong and the setting was unique. Even the plot, while unlikely to win any awards, was more compelling than most (certainly better than Crysis/Crysis 2). And the graphics and performance were excellent, especially considering there were virtually no load screens once in the game. Personally I preferred the visuals in Far Cry 2 to Crysis, though Crysis 2 has better visuals.

I consider Far Cry 2 a better game than the original and better than Crysis and Crysis 2. I don't think it's up there with the likes of Half-Life / HL2 but few games are. The health system was the best I've seen, the diamonds were a nice distraction, the weapons were varied and felt right (though the degradation system was terrible), etc. And the AI was some of the best I've seen. Let me qualify that by stating that some of the AI behaviour was pathetic and some of the worst I've seen (vehicles ramming you, AI respawns, everyone shooting you, etc) but overall because the levels were so open and the addition of vehicles you really had to think how to approach everything - on harder difficulty they really came into their own, yet even when you've got snipers from miles away the game still felt fair.

I'm not worried if other people agree with me or not but I consider Far Cry 2 to be one of the best FPS games I've played and I've played a lot. I'm greatly looking forward to Far Cry 3, as it looks like they've addressed many of the issues people had with it.

Well sir, it seems we have quite different tastes in gaming. I do praise Far Cry 2 for its healing system. I think the industry should've iterated on that system for healing in FPS's instead of the Halo-derived auto-heal system that's become prevalent. FEAR had the right idea with carrying around the health packs, freeing up level designers from having to place them at regular intervals. Some would argue health packs were just as unrealistic as auto-healing, but then Far Cry 2 came out and innovated on it and turned it into an awesome system.

Looking at your sig I have to say our taste for high-end hardware is quite similar. I also looked you up on Steam, and kudos on that impressive collection of games!

Joss wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 18:06:What I saw with Crysis 2 was, "We have to make this run on consoles so let's block it in. Make it in the city." Lost its luster from that point.

You say that but look at games like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry 2 - huge worlds with minimal load times, all optimised for consoles (and PCs). I honestly think it was a design decision, not a technology constraint.

Alamar wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 17:24:And personally, if it's not on Steam, it's an unlikely purchase... Not because I'm boycotting Origin... Simply because it's not enough of a hit for me to do the extra (although minimal) effort... Which I do for other games I want to play (Diablo 3, Guild War 2 both already pre-purchased).

I'm the same. I don't really have a problem with Origin but it doesn't offer the same value to me. The biggest problem is that I have virtually all my games on Steam and I hate having to manage multiple accounts. I have Starcraft II on Battle.net but you wouldn't believe the number of times I've forgot my password, simply because they have lots of restrictions on which characters you can use. Same with websites - if it wasn't for Chrome auto-remembering and Facebook logins then I probably wouldn't both registering or visiting most sites.

Still, I've registered all of my EA games from Steam on Origin which has taken me up to 17 games - I've installed a few of them to try it out but I wasn't impressed with how the Origin client works.

wait... did i read that correctly? prophet is alive? dont tell me theyre going to reincarnate him in the body of alcatraz. alcatraz might be mute during the entire game but his mind was not dead. the nanosuit kept him from being infected and dying from his injuries. prophet on the other hand shot himself in the head at the beginning of crysis 2. or is this a prequel to crysis 2?